Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
arm-soc tree.
The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
notifier
due to code movement.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
*/
#include <linux/init.h>
-#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
#include <linux/of.h>
@@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
return -ENODEV;
}
-static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
-{
- gic_secondary_init(0);
-}
-
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
{
@@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
}
struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
- .smp_secondary_init = psci_secondary_init,
.smp_boot_secondary = psci_boot_secondary,
.cpu_die = psci_cpu_die,
};
--
1.8.1
--
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Stephen,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> arm-soc tree.
>
> The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
> notifier
>
> due to code movement.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
>
> @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> -{
> - gic_secondary_init(0);
> -}
> -
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
> }
>
> struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> - .smp_secondary_init = psci_secondary_init,
> .smp_boot_secondary = psci_boot_secondary,
> .cpu_die = psci_cpu_die,
> };
The fix looks fine. Thanks.
--
Catalin
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> > psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> > gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> > arm-soc tree.
> >
> > The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> > patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> >
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> > Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
> > notifier
> >
> > due to code movement.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
> > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/init.h>
> > -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> > #include <linux/smp.h>
> > #include <linux/of.h>
> >
> > @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > -{
> > - gic_secondary_init(0);
> > -}
> > -
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > {
> > @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
> > }
> >
> > struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> > - .smp_secondary_init = psci_secondary_init,
> > .smp_boot_secondary = psci_boot_secondary,
> > .cpu_die = psci_cpu_die,
> > };
>
> The fix looks fine. Thanks.
Indeed, thanks! I'll add to it to the tree.
Hi Stefano,
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:50:22 +0100 Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > > arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> > > psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> > > gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> > > arm-soc tree.
> > >
> > > The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> > > patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> > > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> > > Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
> > > notifier
> > >
> > > due to code movement.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
> > > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> > > */
> > >
> > > #include <linux/init.h>
> > > -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> > > #include <linux/smp.h>
> > > #include <linux/of.h>
> > >
> > > @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > > -{
> > > - gic_secondary_init(0);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > > void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > > {
> > > @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
> > > }
> > >
> > > struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> > > - .smp_secondary_init = psci_secondary_init,
> > > .smp_boot_secondary = psci_boot_secondary,
> > > .cpu_die = psci_cpu_die,
> > > };
> >
> > The fix looks fine. Thanks.
>
> Indeed, thanks! I'll add to it to the tree.
You should not apply that to your tree as you don't have the rest of the
change from the arm-soc tree. It needs to be applied to the merge of the
two trees i.e. when Linus merges the last of the two trees.
This is why I wrote "no action is required".
And you committed it to your tree without your Signed-off-by ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:50:22 +0100 Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > > > arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> > > > psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> > > > gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> > > > arm-soc tree.
> > > >
> > > > The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> > > > patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> > > >
> > > > From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> > > > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
> > > > notifier
> > > >
> > > > due to code movement.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> > > > #include <linux/smp.h>
> > > > #include <linux/of.h>
> > > >
> > > > @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
> > > > return -ENODEV;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > -{
> > > > - gic_secondary_init(0);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > > > void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> > > > - .smp_secondary_init = psci_secondary_init,
> > > > .smp_boot_secondary = psci_boot_secondary,
> > > > .cpu_die = psci_cpu_die,
> > > > };
> > >
> > > The fix looks fine. Thanks.
> >
> > Indeed, thanks! I'll add to it to the tree.
>
> You should not apply that to your tree as you don't have the rest of the
> change from the arm-soc tree. It needs to be applied to the merge of the
> two trees i.e. when Linus merges the last of the two trees.
>
> This is why I wrote "no action is required".
I added the patch because it is very small and only affects psci_smp.c,
so it is not a problem for me to carry it in the xen-arm tree.
But I see your point, I'll remove it.
As a side note for the arm-soc maintainers in CC, even though I
proactively added the PSCI and the smp_init patches
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136716063717467&w=2) to linux-next
to make sure they get enough exposure for this merge window, I would
appreciate if you could pick them up in your tree. I think they should
to Linus via arm-soc.